About the Authors

  • The Authors and Contributors of "Patent Docs" are patent attorneys and agents, many of whom hold doctorates in a diverse array of disciplines.
Juristat #8 Overall Rank

E-mail Newsletter

  • Enter your e-mail address below to receive the "Patent Docs" e-mail newsletter.

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

Contact the Docs

Docs on Twitter


  • "Patent Docs" does not contain any legal advice whatsoever. This weblog is for informational purposes only, and its publication does not create an attorney-client relationship. In addition, nothing on "Patent Docs" constitutes a solicitation for business. This weblog is intended primarily for other attorneys. Moreover, "Patent Docs" is the personal weblog of the Authors; it is not edited by the Authors' employers or clients and, as such, no part of this weblog may be so attributed. All posts on "Patent Docs" should be double-checked for their accuracy and current applicability.


Become a Fan

« DNA Non-obviousness under Ex parte Kubin (It Gets Worse) | Main | Management Forum to Hold Biotechnology Conference »

October 18, 2007


drop it! drop it now! Drop 1.56 as to publications/journal items/office actions in other cases/copending applications i.e. anything published and searchable by the PTO.

Just keep it for sales/inventorship disputes etc.

I find it exceedingly unlikely that I will ever file an ESD. The risk is too high. By filing one, you are asking to be sued for inequitable conduct.

The proposed IDS rule is a disgrace. It is nothing but an attempt to force applicants to more or less do the duties of the USPTO. How come the EPO and Japan Patent Office are able to do a competent prior art search without requiring applicants to even submit an IDS, much less analyze the references if their number exceeds some arbitrary standard? I hope this rule is dropped.

The comments to this entry are closed.

September 2018

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
2 3 4 5 6 7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15
16 17 18 19 20 21 22
23 24 25 26 27 28 29